On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:56 +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> Neil Mitchell wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >> Although I appluad the semantics of the safe package, I'm not delighted
> >> with the idea of replacing our concise elegant standard library names
> >> with uglyAndRatherLongCamelCaseNamesThatCouldBePerlOrEvenJava though.
> >> Conciseness of expression is a virtue.
> >
> > They aren't that long - merely an extra 4 characters over the standard
> > one to indicate what the specific semantics are. If you can think of
> > better names, then I'm happy to make use of them.
>> No, they're not, and it wasn't intended as a slight against your naming
> choice. I don't have a better suggestion.
Isn't there sort of a tradition for 'unsafe' to mean dangerous
territory, beyond mere domain limitations for functions, so to call this
'safe' may be a bit misleading?
Similarly, I expect foo and foo' to be equivalent, except for strictness
properties, but perhaps an underscore could be used for slightly
different behaviors (interpretations, as it were)? "tail_" or "zip_",
anyone?
-k